pwndbg_step

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states stepping by source line or instruction but does not mention side effects, session state requirements, or what happens after stepping (e.g., if program ends). More behavioral context is needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences define the core action, followed by clear parameter documentation. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered externally. However, given no annotations and the need for behavioral transparency, the description lacks details about post-step state or error conditions. It minimally covers what is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains `session_id` as the session UUID and `instructions` as a flag for machine instruction stepping. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Step into the next source line or instruction', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling stepping tools by indicating it can step by source line or instruction, aligning with the tool's name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the `instructions` parameter for choosing mode but does not provide guidance on when to use this basic step versus alternatives like stepover or stepret. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context for sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.